From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 04:10:44 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA10354; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ect.uce.ac.uk (mail.ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.138.236]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA10345 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:57:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.136.24] by mail.ect.uce.ac.uk
with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 1.76 $; Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:49:15 +0000 (BST)
Message-ID: <36B5993B.D3A8EE88@ect.uce.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:08:27 +0000
From: Richard Kay
Organization: UCE
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Pope , List-Managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: diseconomies of spam
References: Your message of Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:18:17 +0100.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Ivan,
Cc: list-managers
I'm glad Paul's activities got you to tighten up your act, even
if you seem to resent having been made to do this. Every spam
sent is a 10 cent cost spread over all users of the Net. I make
my money by supporting people to use the Internet too, but the
more useful this is the better I can help them and the
better this is for my job. Deny spammers these services (for
whatever reason) and you become part of the solution. Provide
them with any kind of help and you are part of a problem
which has to be dealt with if those who make their living
providing Net services are to provide useful services to end
users. Without useful services there is no living to be made from
the Net for any of us.
How many spams does a person have to receive before the time sorting
these and deleting them outweighs the usefulness of what they do
want to receive ? I think most would give up somewhere between 10
and 100 a day. And how many people on the Net would pay service
providers or support engineers to keep them on without a useful
email service ? Paul Vixie is doing a great job in taking action
to keep ISP and other support staff in a living by being able to
provide services other people find useful.
It's really got nothing to do with religious fundamentalism - as
far as I can see this is all down to simple economics whether you
choose to see it that way or not.
Richard Kay
Rich.Kay@uce.ac.uk
Ivan Pope wrote:
>
> Oh, spare me from the Zealots.
From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 05:09:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA11217; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA11210 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id HAA21075
for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:54:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990201075402.B15047@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:54:02 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec
To: List Managers
Subject: Re: Spam definition
References: <199901311803.MAA22001@celery.tssi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199901311803.MAA22001@celery.tssi.com>; from Mike Nolan on Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 12:03:30PM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 12:03:30PM -0600, Mike Nolan wrote:
> I prefer the designation UCE instead of spam, 'unsolicited [bulk] commercial
> e-mail'. This includes get-rich-quick schemes, sex sites, and so forth.
This is not a correct definition. UBE is preferable to UBE.
Here's why:
> The three major characteristics of UCE are that they are never requested
> by the recipient and not often welcome,
The "U" stands for Unsolicited; whether or not the mail is welcome is
of no significance whatsoever.
> that they are always sent to mass
> quantities of people (generally at trivial costs),
The "B" stands for Bulk. The cost involved is not relevant.
> and they always have profit as a motive for the sender.
The presence or absence of profit is not relevant.
Why make these distinctions? Because the words "welcome" and "profit"
involve analysis of the content, and the definition of spam (as UBE)
is content-free, and must remain so.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org
From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 07:24:52 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA12642; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from firefly.cisco.com (firefly.cisco.com [171.69.63.22]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA12635 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kenny-pc.cisco.com (ricochet-17.cisco.com [171.68.11.209]) by firefly.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA22265 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199902011508.HAA22265@firefly.cisco.com>
X-Sender: kenny@firefly.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 07:01:03 -0800
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Kenny Paul
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990131184123.03ecaab0@127.0.0.1>
References: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>At 10:09 AM 1/31/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote:
>I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'.
This is about the lamest attempt at feigning innocence that I've seen,
outside of the OJ trail and Clinton's lack of crotch control.
Regards, Kenny Paul
"live from the BART CART"
From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 12:06:13 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA16904; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cyberq.quality.org (cyberq.quality.org [199.181.80.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA16897 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:36:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (help@localhost)
by cyberq.quality.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA04987
for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:42:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:42:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)"
To: List Managers List
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
In-Reply-To: <199902011508.HAA22265@firefly.cisco.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
1. Spam n : (trademark) a tinned luncheon meat made largely from pork
2. spam /vt.,vi.,n./ [from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To crash a
program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input
data. See also {buffer overflow}, {overrun screw}, {smash the stack}. 2.
To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate
messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-)
planned message (e.g. asking "What do you think of abortion?" on
soc.women). This is often done with {cross-post}ing (e.g. any message
which is crossposted to alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality
will almost inevitably spam both groups). 3. To send many identical or
nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet
newsgroups. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net.
3. Spam v. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional
purposes.
4. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size
{buffer} with excessively large input data.
[From: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?spam]
Regards.
Bill
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Kenny Paul wrote:
> >At 10:09 AM 1/31/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote:
>
> >I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'.
>
> This is about the lamest attempt at feigning innocence that I've seen,
> outside of the OJ trail and Clinton's lack of crotch control.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards, Kenny Paul
> "live from the BART CART"
>
>
From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 12:48:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA17570; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:34:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA17563 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:34:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6])
by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25624
for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:39:58 -0600
Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA32707 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:39:56 -0600
From: Mike Nolan
Message-Id: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Spam definition
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:39:55 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> The "B" stands for Bulk. The cost involved is not relevant.
Rich, I will defer to your expertise on UBE versus UCE, though I have to
confess I have not seen that term before, or perhaps not recognized it.
However, I am not particularly active in the anti-spamming effort, because
I feel that playing an elaborate game of fox and hounds is for others,
younger and more technically oriented than I, though I'm quite happy to
benefit from their labors, so if that's where it comes from, I would
probably not have seen it previously.
(And I suspect the word 'spam' is here to stay, anyway, despite disagreements
over its precise definition.)
I disagree that the cost factor is irrelevant. If it cost bulk e-mailers
10 cents per message to do it, or even ONE cent, we probably wouldn't be
having this whole discussion, would we?
But if it cost one cent each for me to send out my mailing list traffic,
with over 500,000 messages delivered (traffic x subscribers) in a busy
month, I probably wouldn't be doing what I do, either, at least not the
way it currently functions.
That's why I'd like to see some kind of economic pricing model for
net traffic. Unsolicited messages are paid for by the sender, solicited
messages could be paid for by the recipient.
I've asked, many of my subscribers would WILLINGLY pay one cent per message
delivered, should such a facility be possible, though some would undoubtably
go away and others would move over to my lower-volume news-only subset.
Sender based content filtering would likely become more of a necessity
under such a transfer of payments system, too.
Example: I run two sports lists, and this Wednesday is national letter
of intent signing day in football, so that topic dominates both lists
ever January and early February.
Yet there are some subscribers who don't have much interest in whether
Joe High School is said to be leaning towards this school or that,
they'd rather read about when spring practice starts, whether Notre Dame will
be on the schedule in a few year, etc. So, a mailing list management system
that recognizes which messages are about recruiting and sends them only to
the subscribers who have requested recruiting traffic messages in their
profile would seem highly desirable. (Actually, I'd like such a beast
NOW, anybody know of one?)
And if was somehow possible for the author of list traffic to share the
cost of distributing those messages, I suspect a lot of the flamefest traffic
would go away quickly, too.
And the cost allocation information could be used as a sorting factor
in mail readers, mail I _paid_ to receive would certainly go towards
the top of my list, mail I didn't solicit towards the bottom.
--
Mike Nolan
From list-managers-owner Mon Feb 1 13:57:55 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA18243; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA18235 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA053064252; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:24:12 -0500
Message-Id: <199902012124.AA053064252@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Rich Kulawiec
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: AOL is horribly broken this morning
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:29:58 EST."
<19990131092958.A12965@gsp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 16:24:12 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>> AppliedTheory [our network provider] has worked with Sprint [Applied
>> Theory's network provider] overnight on the issue,
>> as AT did not have a route to AOL networks on our backbone. Sprint
>> informed AT that AOL is making software and routing changes on
>> their network. This is causing significant changes in how Sprint
>> and AppliedTheory are receiving the routes to AOL and ICQ.
>
>This appears to have no relationship to the problem that I (and others)
>experienced. The information I provided clearly shows that mail was
>received by AOL's mail server(s), and clearly shows that it was returned,
>thus indicating a functional, if not optimal/robust network path.
>
>It's pretty obvious that AOL broke their mail servers; I'm waiting to
>see if they acknowledge their error and provide an explanation for it.
Rick, you may be right. I agree that on the surface it appears to have
no relationship to the problem described. However depending on how AOL's
e-mail is handled internally it is certainly possible that it does. I
have no idea how their e-mail systems are engineered, but if the mailboxes
are not kept on the systems that MX for the domain, and the routing problems
kept the MX systems from communicating with the mailbox systems, then we
have the makings for bouncing mail at the MX systems due to inability to
verify mailbox status.
-Mitch
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 01:29:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA27362; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA27355 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate6-93.cyberlink.ch [212.55.195.93])
by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA02423
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:08:07 +0100
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00657;
Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:48:42 +0100
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:48:42 +0100
Message-Id: <199902020848.JAA00657@quill.thinkcoach.com>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com> (message from Mike Nolan
on Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:39:55 -0600 (CST))
Subject: Re: Spam definition
References: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Mike Nolan wrote:
> But if it cost one cent each for me to send out my mailing list traffic,
> with over 500,000 messages delivered (traffic x subscribers) in a busy
> month, I probably wouldn't be doing what I do, either, at least not the
> way it currently functions.
>
> That's why I'd like to see some kind of economic pricing model for
> net traffic. Unsolicited messages are paid for by the sender, solicited
> messages could be paid for by the recipient.
Yes. And those who still send me unsolicited mail should be made to pay
me something like $1 per message for my giving the message so much
attention that I decide to press the 'delete' key. (Yes, my time is
valuable.)
Of course when I appreciate someone's mail I'll be happy to press a
'refund' key which pays them back the money they had to pay for getting
my attention.
It should be easy enough to build an email program which will not go to
the next message until the 'delete' key or the 'refund' key has been
pressed.
The tricky part is to design and implement protocols for automating
these payments in a way which is secure and still reasonably efficient.
I'll be happy to hear from anyone who is willing to invest some time
into thinking this through.
May blessings from the eternal God surprise and overtake you!
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland. Backup e-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 06:03:23 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA03068; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA03061 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA04102
for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990202085233.A3874@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:52:33 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec
To: List Managers List
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
References: <199902011508.HAA22265@firefly.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: ; from Bill Casti (System Admin) on Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:42:07PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:42:07PM -0500, Bill Casti (System Admin) wrote:
> 3. Spam v. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional
> purposes.
This is an incorrect definition: it's overinclusive, because it covers
a broad range of abuses other than UBE, and it's underinclusive, because
it does not cover UBE sent for non-promotional purposes.
One correct definition is the one I provided yesterday. It is narrowly
written, it is context-free, it excludes questions of motivation, and
it defines spam in terms of action, not in terms of speech, which is a
necessary precursor toward an effective discussion of spam issues.
(Otherwise, the discussion wanders off into irrelevant areas such as
censorship.)
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 06:46:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA03652; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.rev.net (mercury.rev.net [206.67.68.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA03645 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:34:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bernie.rev.net (bernie.rev.net [206.67.68.5])
by mercury.rev.net (8.9.2/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA28467
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199902021440.JAA28467@mercury.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:44:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Spam definition
Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
In-reply-to: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 1 Feb 99, at 14:39, Mike Nolan wrote:
> I disagree that the cost factor is irrelevant. If it cost bulk e-mailers
> 10 cents per message to do it, or even ONE cent, we probably wouldn't be
> having this whole discussion, would we?
I certainly agree. I think that the cost-recovery model NSF left us with
has been a REAL double-edged sword. UCE/UBE is clearly the bad part of
it, and...
> But if it cost one cent each for me to send out my mailing list traffic,
> with over 500,000 messages delivered (traffic x subscribers) in a busy
> month, I probably wouldn't be doing what I do, either, at least not the
> way it currently functions.
In addition to things like FTP archives, online software/patch
distribution (and IRS tax forms :o)). YMMV as to whether web pages with
1 meg of graphics or streaming video and audio are good things or not,
but they probably would hardly exist if the sender had to pay.
> That's why I'd like to see some kind of economic pricing model for
> net traffic. Unsolicited messages are paid for by the sender, solicited
> messages could be paid for by the recipient.
This is the obvious solution and the only problem with it is that there's
no real infrastructure for it [and everyone will jump up and down and
complain that "the net has always been free"].
If the net switched over to some kind of "pay for what you use"
structure, the direct implication would be that you'll get a bill from
your ISP for all of the bandwidth you generate and the resources you use.
Indirect implication: things like TUCOWS and the various real-audio sites
and document archives and such won't be able to work the way they do any
more. What'll have to happen in that case is just like it is with every
other medium: you would have to "subscribe" and just as you have to pay
the bill to receive Scientific American in your USMail, you'd have to pay
the bill to receive your favorite mailing list via email. Folks running
mailing lists would have to handle billing and cost-allocation in a means
very much like the way in-print publishers do.
For simple stuff [FTP and email] it seems simple enough. The web would
be a different matter [although, maybe it would be better if folk
actually had to think twice about putting multi-hundred-K images on their
$@#$%@#$% web pages :o)], but you'd have to do something to put in
bandwidth limits [else some hacker could run you broke by just running a
bot to access your web page ten million times]. I've never understood a
useful pricing model for usenet, but the thought of some kind of 'poster
pays' to make those cretins flooding it with hundred-meg copyright
infringements have to actually PAY to do it couldn't be bad.
there'd be a lot of changes in the various details [e.g., unrestricted
mailing lists would probably be a thing of the past: no matter who pays
for it, when someone actually has to *pay* if some bozo sends a megabyte
attachment to a list that goes to a thousand people, folks will want to
have some kind of control]
I've been associated with the Internet for a VERY VERY long time, and it
has -never- made sense to me that it has never had a proper cost recovery
model that involved paying for what you use (I lay this problem on NSF's
doorstep; the situation was arguably different for DCA and ARPA, but
there was never any excuse, IMO, for NSF not to put in proper
accountability/accounting). What's interesting is that it'd be
relatively easy to do: every router and gateway already keeps enough
statistics to be able to generate bills for the next person 'downstream'.
Scary/intriguing thoughts, but it ain't gonna happen, more's-the-pity,
and so we're still left with the mess...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bernie.rev.net (bernie.rev.net [206.67.68.5])
by mercury.rev.net (8.9.2/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA30825
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:52:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199902021452.JAA30825@mercury.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:57:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Spam definition
Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
In-reply-to: <199902020848.JAA00657@quill.thinkcoach.com>
References: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com> (message from Mike Nolan on Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:39:55 -0600 (CST))
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 2 Feb 99, at 9:48, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Yes. And those who still send me unsolicited mail should be made to pay
> me something like $1 per message for my giving the message so much
> attention that I decide to press the 'delete' key. (Yes, my time is
> valuable.)
Oh, PULLEEEZ. This is a hard enough topic to discuss without this kind
of rhetoric. It takes one second, maybe two, to delete a mesage. Are
you gonna try to argue that your time is REALLY $2k+/hr valuable? Even
if you spend a princely ten seconds to decide to dump something, your $1
works out to >$300/hr.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (help@localhost)
by cyberq.quality.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA04608
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:43:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:43:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)"
Reply-To: "Bill Casti (System Admin)"
To: List Managers List
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
In-Reply-To: <19990202085233.A3874@gsp.org>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Take it up with the site that provided the definition (it was noted at the
end of the definition listings), not with this list.
Bill
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:42:07PM -0500, Bill Casti (System Admin) wrote:
> > 3. Spam v. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional
> > purposes.
>
> This is an incorrect definition: it's overinclusive, because it covers
> a broad range of abuses other than UBE, and it's underinclusive, because
> it does not cover UBE sent for non-promotional purposes.
>
> One correct definition is the one I provided yesterday. It is narrowly
> written, it is context-free, it excludes questions of motivation, and
> it defines spam in terms of action, not in terms of speech, which is a
> necessary precursor toward an effective discussion of spam issues.
> (Otherwise, the discussion wanders off into irrelevant areas such as
> censorship.)
>
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> rsk@gsp.org
>
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 11:16:19 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06713; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06706 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6])
by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10075
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:47:01 -0600
Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA20604 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:46:58 -0600
From: Mike Nolan
Message-Id: <199902021846.MAA20604@celery.tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Spam definition
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:46:58 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Bernie Cosell wrote:
> In addition to things like FTP archives, online software/patch
> distribution (and IRS tax forms :o)). YMMV as to whether web pages with
> 1 meg of graphics or streaming video and audio are good things or not,
> but they probably would hardly exist if the sender had to pay.
For most webpages, FTP sites and mailing lists, I think the receiver would
have to pay the transaction fee, but that could vary as well. I would
think most sales.com sites would be more than willing to pay or split
the access cost to get the business. And if I can buy from foo.com
and they pay the web access charge, or from bar.com and I pay it, and
the merchandise price is essentially the same, who do I buy it from?
Next question?
This might put streaming audio and video at risk, but they represent
rather high bandwidth-per-user use of the Internet anyway. And I should
add that I'm a _user_ of streaming audio, to do things like listen to
sportcasts and classical music, I'm just not sure what pricing model makes
sense for these, or what transaction fees would work. But I'm willing
to pay $12.95 to watch a PPV football game on TV, would I pay $2.00 to
listen to it on realaudio? Probably. And would I pay that same $12.95
to get a streaming video feed of it when my %$#@ cable company chooses not
to carry that game? You betcha! But I think the satellite folks will lock
up the video/audio segments of the streaming feed marketplace in the long
run, so it may become a nonissue through the evolution of technology.
> This is the obvious solution and the only problem with it is that there's
> no real infrastructure for it [and everyone will jump up and down and
> complain that "the net has always been free"].
Of course the net has NEVER been free, it's just that for most users the
big bills go to somebody else. But I remember widespread predictions of
the death of the net when the NSF funding dried up, and that didn't happen.
> Folks running
> mailing lists would have to handle billing and cost-allocation in a means
> very much like the way in-print publishers do.
Not if a true transaction based transfer of payments system could be set up,
like long distance phones. If I run a website or an information repository
of some kind I get a fraction of a cent per hit from the user, then the
business of PROVIDING information starts to pay for itself, even for some
mailing list owners, most of whom aren't in it for the money.
The Chicago Tribune is apparently in the process of changing its website,
articles more than a day old will cost $1.95. At that price, they'll never
get any money from me. But even at a couple of cents per article, I'd be
more than willing to continue to browse through their archives daily.
> bandwidth limits [else some hacker could run you broke by just running a
> bot to access your web page ten million times].
On a recipient-based payment site, let 'em, and when the bill arrives by
Brinks truck at the end of the month, that's the end of that! On a
sender-based site, some kind of limits would need to be in place, but I
believe that web server techology has already addressed this issue somewhat.
And since the END USER needs to be identified somehow as part of the billing
process, rather than just the IP address, it should be possible to
discriminate between a horde of AOL users and a hacker.
There are privacy issues to deal with, as well as identification,
authentication, and security issues, but I think they are all resolveable.
Most are issues that people are trying to solve anyhow, it just requires
enough people with a vision of what to do with all the pieces and enough
people who have influence to make this the next generation of the net.
And there WILL be a next generation, for a variety of reasons, and a
generation after that, and in one of these transformations maybe we
can make this part of the model. I'm patient, the net isn't going away,
nor are the problems this attempts to address.
> there'd be a lot of changes in the various details [e.g., unrestricted
> mailing lists would probably be a thing of the past: no matter who pays
> for it, when someone actually has to *pay* if some bozo sends a megabyte
> attachment to a list that goes to a thousand people, folks will want to
> have some kind of control]
Somebody has to pay now, it just isn't always me or my subscribers. And
yes it will require beefing up mailing list software, but that's not a bad
idea even under the current pricing model. (And that's a different thread.)
> relatively easy to do: every router and gateway already keeps enough
> statistics to be able to generate bills for the next person 'downstream'.
> Scary/intriguing thoughts, but it ain't gonna happen, more's-the-pity,
> and so we're still left with the mess...
I'm not so sure it's an impossible task, but it is going to be perceived
as an unreasonable one, especially at first. But as someone once said,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
I'm kind of a broad concept guy on this, I have little if any of the technical
knowledge or skills to make it actually work, and am probably too old to
master all the internal details, too.
But I think I see the possibilities here, and will even be in a position in
a few weeks to devote some time to structuring the concept to the point
where the real technicians can start to think about it.
And it's interesting, the last time I floated this idea on this list I was
roundly shot down by most everyone else. Either they've given up on me as
being a crackpot or just maybe the idea isn't so stupid sounding this time
around?
Norbert Bollow was willing to set up a forum for discussing this idea
last summer, but I was tied up on some other projects and unable to do
it justice at the time. It sounds like we've got two or three other
people willing to be involved, maybe we can start to get something going
this time, at least to the point where we can attract the interest of
people who do have enough influence or see the commercial potential here.
(The person who figures out how to make it work and lands the contract to
run the transfer of payments clearing center could be the next Bill Gates.)
A question for those of you who are academics or conference attendees on
a regular basis. Is there some technical or academic conference where this
might be a viable session topic?
--
Mike Nolan
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 14:02:02 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA09198; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maximpact.net ([151.196.219.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA09191 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (ken@localhost)
by maximpact.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA16056
for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:47:34 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:47:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Gourlay
X-Sender: ken@maximpact.net
cc: List Managers List
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
In-Reply-To: <19990202085233.A3874@gsp.org>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Why don't we just use "UBE", since that's self-explanatory, instead of the
vague (and trademarked) term "spam"?
I've been keeping my mouth shut mainly because I didn't feel my
contributions were worth further clutturring your mailboxes, but since I'm
doing exactly that now, I'll tell you a story.
I've only had one encounter with UBE as a system administrator and
Internet resource reseller. One of my clients resold some web space and
an e-mail POP box to another gentleman who immediately proceeded to send
out several thousand (or more?) unsolicited messages (amusingly with the
title "RE: Information you requested"). Neither myself, my client, nor my
network service provider, had any idea that this was going on. Yet, when
I checked the next day, I had an insulting message on my voicemail, and
a couple dozen canned threats, form letters, or simple insults in my
mailbox. My client woke up with 400 such messages. Fortunately, we were
able to simply deny the genlteman further access to his POP box or web
space and the threats stopped. But I was rather distressed, frustrated,
and annoyed by the response from the public and their ISPs. It seems that
every one of them was fighting spam with spam. I did getone or two polite
and well-considered threats, but most of the responses to the bulk e-mail
were merely insulting and generally not well-thought out. In many cases
they were generic responses to bulk e-mail with a copy of the message they
received tacked on to the end.
Now, I know that I can't expect people to spend a long time sending a
customized formal complaint for each message they receive, but it's
frustrating to me the type of responses I got. Personally, I've never had
a problem with unsolicited e-mail (less than 5-10 a week usually). the
problems I've had are with people complaining (like on a ne-mail list when
someone posts something off-topic and I get 50 messages saying "don't post
that stuff" and then "don't respond to everyone on the list" and finally
"don't tell everyone to stop responding to everyone on the list"). I'm
sure I'm not an adequate cross-sample of the net population, but to me it
seems that the problem is not spam but rather people's lack of tolerance.
----------------------
Ken Gourlay
Chain Communications
----------------------
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:42:07PM -0500, Bill Casti (System Admin) wrote:
> > 3. Spam v. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional
> > purposes.
>
> This is an incorrect definition: it's overinclusive, because it covers
> a broad range of abuses other than UBE, and it's underinclusive, because
> it does not cover UBE sent for non-promotional purposes.
>
> One correct definition is the one I provided yesterday. It is narrowly
> written, it is context-free, it excludes questions of motivation, and
> it defines spam in terms of action, not in terms of speech, which is a
> necessary precursor toward an effective discussion of spam issues.
> (Otherwise, the discussion wanders off into irrelevant areas such as
> censorship.)
>
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> rsk@gsp.org
>
From list-managers-owner Tue Feb 2 21:23:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA14915; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA14908 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA40688
; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:20:33 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <19990202085233.A3874@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:16:28 -0800
To: Ken Gourlay
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
Cc: List Managers List
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 4:47 PM -0500 2/2/99, Ken Gourlay wrote:
> Now, I know that I can't expect people to spend a long time sending a
> customized formal complaint for each message they receive, but it's
> frustrating to me the type of responses I got.
> Personally, I've never had
> a problem with unsolicited e-mail (less than 5-10 a week usually).
I'd guess that if you had more of a UBE problem personally, you'd
understand why you get form letters and other less pleasant stuff. I
don't *like* getting that stuff, but I understand where most of these
folks are coming from. I have been known to send out an occasional
"if you really want this fixed, you need to learn how to ask
appropriately", but to be honest, it's not worth the time and hassle.
As Bill Cosby once said, "Parents don't want justice. They want
quiet". As a receiver of UBE, I want quiet. As someone who deals with
UBE complaints from the other side, I also want quiet. Which means
just resolving issues and not getting into arguments about the
message with the messenger.
Some folks deal with things less rationally than others -- some with
cause, some because they're idiots. Just like real life, where
sometimes disagreements get talked out, sometimes people get into
fights, and sometimes people get shot over parking places. I don't
plan to prove myself ethically right, but unable to say so because I
got shot (real or virtually). Life's too short.
> someone posts something off-topic and I get 50 messages saying "don't post
> that stuff" and then "don't respond to everyone on the list" and finally
> "don't tell everyone to stop responding to everyone on the list").
Thats' why all my list rules are very explicit about others not
playing topic cop,a nd why I enforce that very heavily. It can upset
the folks who pull that stuff, but it also keeps those meta
discussions from getting out of control. And as I point out to them,
if they want to enforce the rules, they better know the rules, and
the first rule is, "don't do that" -- and since it's part of the
formal rules, they can whine, but ignorance is no excuse...
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 00:22:59 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA16960; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from beat.kiss.fi (beat.kiss.fi [193.65.198.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA16949 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by beat.kiss.fi (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21746
for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:18:01 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: beat.kiss.fi: tuupola owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:18:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Mika Tuupola
To: List Managers List
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Ken Gourlay wrote:
> out several thousand (or more?) unsolicited messages (amusingly with the
> title "RE: Information you requested"). Neither myself, my client, nor my
> network service provider, had any idea that this was going on. Yet, when
> I checked the next day, I had an insulting message on my voicemail, and
I had a bit same kind of encounter. A spam was sent through
a company I used to work for before. I was still mentioned
as Technical Contact in ripe data so whois gave my name,
address and phone number. This whois data was posted by some
antispam activist to one antispam USENET newsgroup suggesting that
people should not email the company but to call these
phonenumbers.
Personally I dont find this any better than spamming itself.
--
Mika Tuupola tuupola@appelsiini.net
Appelsiini Networks http://www.appelsiini.net/
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 02:37:41 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA19800; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA19790 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [195.40.150.140] (ivan.netnames.co.uk [195.40.150.140])
by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05562;
Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:34:15 GMT
X-Sender: ivan@human.netnames.net
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <199902021440.JAA28467@mercury.rev.net>
References: <199902012039.OAA32707@celery.tssi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:29:19 +0100
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
From: Ivan Pope
Subject: Pay for use?
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>I've been associated with the Internet for a VERY VERY long time, and it
>has -never- made sense to me that it has never had a proper cost recovery
>model that involved paying for what you use (I lay this problem on NSF's
>doorstep; the situation was arguably different for DCA and ARPA, but
>there was never any excuse, IMO, for NSF not to put in proper
>accountability/accounting). What's interesting is that it'd be
>relatively easy to do: every router and gateway already keeps enough
>statistics to be able to generate bills for the next person 'downstream'.
>Scary/intriguing thoughts, but it ain't gonna happen, more's-the-pity,
>and so we're still left with the mess...
I think that if there had been a 'pay for all use at the individual point'
system, there would be no Internet. There would of course be proprietory
networks for business etc and people would still be trying to get us to
subscribe to various services and no doubt we would.
Of course, every business does pay for its traffic. One of the reasons the
Internet has worked so well is because its made us all think very hard
about how to pay for the services that we know the Internet should provide.
That's not to say there shouldn't be restrictions on some activities, but
again this forces us to be creative.
But, to say that we should have had 'pay for what you use' from the start
misses the point that there would be no Internet if that had been the case.
Ivan
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 06:36:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA24557; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 06:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA24549 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 06:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (pem-43.swva.net [208.140.224.155])
by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA20321
for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:23:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199902031423.JAA20321@ctc.swva.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:23:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Pay for use?
Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
In-reply-to:
References: <199902021440.JAA28467@mercury.rev.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Feb 99, at 10:29, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >I've been associated with the Internet for a VERY VERY long time, and it
> >has -never- made sense to me that it has never had a proper cost recovery
> >model that involved paying for what you use (I lay this problem on NSF's
> >doorstep; the situation was arguably different for DCA and ARPA, but
> >there was never any excuse, IMO, for NSF not to put in proper
> >accountability/accounting). What's interesting is that it'd be
> >relatively easy to do: every router and gateway already keeps enough
> >statistics to be able to generate bills for the next person 'downstream'.
> >Scary/intriguing thoughts, but it ain't gonna happen, more's-the-pity,
> >and so we're still left with the mess...
>
> I think that if there had been a 'pay for all use at the individual point'
> system, there would be no Internet.
It is water long over the dam, but I think you're wrong. If, when NSF
started up CSNET [and later set up the NSFnet backbones and the
regionals], they had set up a billback scheme, so that schools got billed
according to the traffic they generated, I don't think the Internet would
have died at all, any more than that schools don't provide phones because
the phone company bills them for usage, or that they don't subscribe to
journals because they have to pay to receive them. I think it would have
worked out just fine, but certainly been different. While the 'billing
machinery' was small and a the community relatively closed [since in the
end NSF was picking up most of the bills anyway via grants] there would
have been ample time to sort out various policy matters [how to pay for
mailing lists... how to pay for FTP archives, and then later how to pay
for IRC, how to pay for usenet, how to pay for the web, etc].
I don't think the per-transaction cost for normal things would have
worked out to being very large [how much can it cost to send a 1K email
message on a T3?] and would have only discouraged the applications that
were REAL bandwidth hogs and were arguably useless [like the clowns at
MIT who walked around with video cams on their heads all day, or the real-
time-video of some student's pet iguana]. Even then, schools could get
grants to research whateveritwas and just pay for the bandwidth [just as
they have to actually budget for, and pay for, every OTHER resource they
consume, from pencils to photocopies to trips to conferences] for
research they fund. The MIT media lab had to pay for *EVERY*OTHER*
resource it consumed, -except- the network communicatiosn bandwith its
applications ate; why should that one addition resource/expense have been
a show stopper?
Places like Amazon and buy.com and friends would trivially pay the minor
transaction costs to run their web sites [although they might thing twice
about the fancy graphics]. Just think how it would've been if the folk
that designed X-windows had been doing so with a mindset of pay-for-the-
bandwidth-it-uses rather than "everyone using X will be on a 100meg LAN".
Places like NPR [and other 'real audio' providers like ABC, CNBC, etc]
routinely *expect* to pay for all of their other communications costs
[satellite links, 800-dialins, etc], why would having to pay for their
internet services be a make-or-break situation?
My guess is that personal accounts would end up being like today's cell-
phone accounts are: there woudl be a LOT of different plans, but instead
of having just "connect hours" [and sometimes "web page storage"] bundled
in, they'd also have some "base bandwidth". For your $19.95 a month, you
get 5 megs/month of data transfer or some such.
I think it all would have been doable [indeed, just barely, conceivably
_still_ could be doable] and I don't think it would've killed the
internet at all. The key things that make the internet work are *NOT*
[IMO, of course] the huge bandwidth hogs.
> ... There would of course be proprietory
> networks for business etc and people would still be trying to get us to
> subscribe to various services and no doubt we would.
I think you've got this wrong. There already *WERE* proprietary networks
pre-CIX/pre-regionals. Prodigy, CIS, etc. They were *dieing* to
interconnect with the "real net" and I just don't believe that a pay-for-
usage model would have deterred them. THey might have some kind of two-
tier setup [which, in fact, AOL had for quite a while: AOL-local email
was free, but you paid for internet email [but they got it wrong, of
course, since you paid to *receive* internet email]].
> Of course, every business does pay for its traffic. One of the reasons the
> Internet has worked so well is because its made us all think very hard
> about how to pay for the services that we know the Internet should provide.
Foo!!!! One of the reasons the internet has worked so well is
*just*the*opposite*. Folks approached it with a "bandwidth is free, how
can I make a buck" attitude or at the least with a "bandwidth is free,
what neat/fun/useless thing can I *do* with that bandwidth" [and so you
get InternetPhone and the Fax handlers and folks selling software and
discovering that they can save $10 on each item in
handling/admin/shipping costs because sending their stuff out over the
internet "is free", not to mention iguanacam and friends].
> But, to say that we should have had 'pay for what you use' from the start
> misses the point that there would be no Internet if that had been the case.
I think we're doomed to disagree on this, but you might expand on why you
think that's the case rather than just saying it ex cathedra. I actually
think the Internet would have progressed *exactly* as it did, only
perhaps a bit more slowly, a bit more deliberately, and with a bit more
attention to utility/bandwidthconsumed.
The gov't sites would've been on the net anyway, and their internet costs
would just be budgeted just like every other cost they incur now
[printing, phones, personnel, etc]. the schools certainly would've been
on, as I outlined above. Maybe we wouldn't have MUDs, maybe not IRC [or
perhaps it woudl've been different], but they'd all be there.
The schools that leaned on NSF to start CSNET would certainly not have
backed off if they were just given a bill for what they used --- schools
already had to deal with that for EVERY other resource they provide for
their students and staff, from photocopiers to journal subscriptions to
conferences to research projets. BUT: what it woudl have done would have
almost certainly made schools be -responsible- for their use, and cut
down on the really crazy "let's eat more bandwidth because it is fun and
free" hacks they pursued [where iguanacam is probably my favorite
exemplar for that kind of thing, and just think that there might not have
been as much of a "september effect"]
Businesses were *dieing* to get connected and they would surely have
connected right up as soon as it became legal. It would have been a bit
different of course: more services like the handful of "subscription"
services we have now and fewer of the "take all you want for free"
ftp/document sites, but even for that many companies would realize that
their handling/shipping costs would be so much lower via the Internet
they'd probably eat the costs anyway. Certainly the 'retail' places
would [the buy.coms, amazons, cdnows, etc].
The only potential question for me is "civilian" presence. Would there
be the flood of everyone and their aunt to the Internet? I think the
answer is yes: I think that "ISP accounts" would come bundled with more
"free" bandwidth than almost any normal user would use and I also don't
think [because I have a LOT of faith in the resourcefulness of the
business world] that they'd be put off because everything *on* the
internet would be so expensive. Maybe they'd have to pay a small fee to
"browse the Louvre", but what's the problem with that?
And think about some other things: if sysops got *billed* for their net
usage, do you think there'd be many open/anonymous servers misconfigured
out there? And so in addition to [IMO] doing a lot to cut down on spam,
it'd also [again, IMO] have put a BIG crimp in the hacker-attack
problems.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA37600
; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:32:35 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:26:38 -0800
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: More on ListZone.
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Well, I checked ListZone and my lists were still there, so I fired
off a second, less-friendly note. Which they answered within the hour
with a fairly snotty response. The key piece being:
> Your assumption is completely incorrect. We did not ignore your first
> request. Your lists are removed from our production database.
>
> We just have not sent out an e-mail yet to those who, like you, made this
> request. I'm sorry that you were too impatient to wait another a week or
> two for your acknowledgment.
(note of record. I mailed my first request to be removed on the 22nd.
today is the third. Just under two weeks. I don't think that's being
impatient. I think that's being kind...)
>
> On another note, it is unfortunate that you do not wish the large number of
> internet users that will access our site to be able to find your mailing
> lists, which might be of interest to them and help your beleagured company.
> I might also add that your lists are in other mailing list databases,
> including LISZT.com and Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists
> (www.neosoft.com/internet/paml).
Boy, these folks REALLY make me want to work with them...
My response to their response was:
>>Your assumption is completely incorrect. We did not ignore your first
>>request. Your lists are removed from our production database.
>
> I checked five minutes before sending the second message. They were
> there at that time.
>
>>On another note, it is unfortunate that you do not wish the large number of
>>internet users that will access our site to be able to find your mailing
>>lists, which might be of interest to them and help your beleagured company.
>>I might also add that your lists are in other mailing list databases,
>>including LISZT.com and Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists
>>(www.neosoft.com/internet/paml).
>
> Yup. They're there because I agreed to put them there. Ask first
> next time. And you should get your act together. The first list you
> added to your database of mine had been dead for months. The next
> two I checked had significant data errors that made the entries
> useless.
>
> If you can't get it right, don't bother doing it. And don't do it
> without asking first.
>
> If you'd gotten at least SOME of the basics right, I wouldn't have
> been nearly as unreceptive. But you're doing me no favors here, so
> don't feel bad that I don't feel grateful for whatever it is you're
> thinking you're doing, because right now, all I know is it's some
> unknown group of people who haven't identified themselves who
> screwed up their data entry and didn't ask permission.
>
> Not a good first impression, Andy. So far, no good impression at all.
And assuming they aren't lying about removing me from their database,
I guess that's it. But just between you and me, I'll go back in a bit
and check....
If you haven't gotten satisfaction from these folks, I guess rattling
their cages is going to be necessary. My first note was a polite
request. My second note was a formal cease and desist. I guess that
caught their attention.
Still not at all impressed (and no, they haven't responded to my last
note, nor do I expect them to. I also still have no clue who they
are, what they plan on doing with this date, why the site exists, and
how they got the data in the first place, but....)
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 19:21:16 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04787; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA04779 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.198.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA20715 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:57:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely [207.155.198.83])
by darius.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(98/12/15 5.12))
id PAA00913; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:02:34 -0500 (EST)
[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Received: from wildchild (ts004d37.tul-ok.concentric.net [206.173.148.193])
by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.9.1a)
id PAA10235; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:02:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199901312002.PAA10235@mcfeely.concentric.net>
From: "Angus"
Organization: Down On DaFarm
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:02:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Spam Police
Reply-to: angus1@cris.com
In-reply-to: <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net>
References: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01a)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> It's a very grey area, IMO, and probably scares legit people away from
> setting up newsletters, some that I might like to be on.
Jeanne, I don't quite understand why people would be scared away from staring
newsletter type lists.. all they would have to do, is what many organizations and
people have done.. allow people to subscribe if they are interested and unsub if they
find they aren't.???
...Cleo angus1@cris.com
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 19:36:36 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA05126; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA05116 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from triceratops.com (triceratops.com [206.83.162.235]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA15924 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:40:05 -0800 (PST)
From: johnjohn@triceratops.com
Received: (qmail 406 invoked by uid 100); 3 Feb 1999 06:43:24 -0000
Message-ID: <19990202224323.D21737@triceratops.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:43:23 -0800
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)
References: <19990202085233.A3874@gsp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: ; from Ken Gourlay on Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 04:47:33PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 04:47:33PM -0500, Ken Gourlay wrote:
> Why don't we just use "UBE", since that's self-explanatory, instead of the
> vague (and trademarked) term "spam"?
Ummm... because that would mean that the topic was still being
discussed?
--
John White
johnjohn@triceratops.com
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 19:50:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04987; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA04977 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA18514 for list-managers; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199902012137.NAA18514@honor.greatcircle.com>
From: mcb@greatcircle.com (Michael C. Berch)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:37:48 +0000
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: list-managers
Subject: The spam discussion
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
While the discussion of political and legal issues involving spam have
been interesting, I think it should be pointed out that List-Managers
is not a general-purpose spam/anti-spam discussion forum. There are
a number of such forums on the Net, both mailing lists and newsgroups,
and much of the recent discussion really belongs there.
Discussions of spam and anti-spam techniques and policies as they
affect the management, maintenance, and use of Internet mailing lists
are of course welcome. General political/legal/policy arguments about
spam should be taken elsewhere. When this issue has arisen in the
past, this has been the overwhelming consensus of the list members.
(Needless to say, the above remarks are not directed toward any particular
individual, faction, or position.)
Thanks,
--
Michael C. Berch
List-Managers list manager
mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 20:05:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04860; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA04850 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkone.net (mail.networkone.net [209.144.112.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA03989 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jet (assured-01-106.ln.networkone.net [209.144.118.107])
by mail.networkone.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA16927
for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:42:40 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990131224142.01021910@ptw.com>
X-Sender: juniper@ptw.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:41:42 -0800
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: jet
Subject: Re: Spam Police
In-Reply-To: <199901312310.PAA23087@honor.greatcircle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 03:10 PM 1/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'.
>Thanks,
>Ivan
>
I'd much rather hear why netnames has seen fit to send their advertisements,
-repeatedly- to several non-commercial mailing lists to which I subscribe.
I believe that satisfies any common definition of 'spam', so I doubt any
of us need to give any further explanations of your actions.
You provide a haven for spam drop-boxes. People, in general, don't like
it. You've chosen your profession so, quit whining that some of us
disapprove and live with your choice, as we live with our choice to block
out some of the domains you house. Ultimately, it's the decision of an ISP's
users, whether they wish to stay with an ISP who blocks spam. If they
want to receive it, they'll go to an ISP who accepts it, don't you think?
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 20:22:14 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04875; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA04867 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA12458 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:48:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id HAA29057; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:53:43 -0700 (MST)
From: "Tom Neff"
To:
Subject: Memo on the spam issue
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:53:56 -0500
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199902010900.BAA05643@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I was away for a week and it was interesting to read this whole debate at a
sitting. You have my permission to reproduce what follows anywhere you
like, as long as you do it in entirety or at least in context.
---------
MEMO ON THE SPAM ISSUE
Let me state at the outset that I dislike spam as much as anyone here, and
specifically in a List-Managers context, I hate its being sent to my
lists -- or to individuals whose addresses have been harvested from my
lists.
While I agree that an excuse-laden "spammer speak" exists, I notice that
what you could call "spambuster speak" is also being perfected by
well-meaning folks who have, in effect, declared jihad over the issue, and
gird for battle each day, ready to browbeat anyone stupid enough to get into
an argument with them on this subject instead of doing something useful like
spamming fraudulent stock offers or sorting the sock drawer.
For example: "The Internet" is not really threatened by spam, a/k/a
unsolicited commercial email (UCE), not in five years or five decades. "The
Internet" is just IP traffic using a set of application protocols, of which
SMTP (email) uses a small bandwidth fraction, even with spam included.
Infrastructure is being built at a breakneck pace to accomodate Web and
post-Web traffic whose volume dwarfs that of older protocols, no matter what
it's used for. Email gets a free ride, now and for the indefinite future.
If it were turned off completely -- and who can say for sure that it won't
be -- the Internet would keep on mushrooming.
What _is_ threatened by "spam" is the old-fashioned, unspoiled privilege of
having a real-world email address that's publicly known and discoverable
throughout the Net by any nice person who needs it, and yet when you open
your In-box in the morning there's nothing there except friendly personal
and business messages from people you actually want to correspond with. As
the ALL IN THE FAMILY theme went, "Those were the days."
(Of course those really _weren't_ the days, because most people didn't have
email yet as they do now - it was basically an interesting and promising
toy, unless you were lucky enough to work in one of the little
academic-industrial circles where the Net was born. I don't begrudge those
folks their good fortune, but we should realize the limitations of the model
they worked under.)
When I go to my US Postal Service mailbox in the morning, probably 60% of
what's there is unsolicited, and another 20% is sheer boilerplate (oh great,
another J.Jill catalog, why did we ever order that turtleneck?). Even the
stuff I "expect" seems to be mostly waste paper (Reaching Out To You: A
Colorful Monthly Newletter From Your Electric Company -- GAAACK!); actual
personal or business mail from people I know would be lucky to break the
two-percent mark, except at Christmas - and even those are often xeroxed
"family newsletters" lately. But I don't declare war over it -- why not?
Because (1) postal commerce is REGULATED. I know I won't get HOT STEAMY
PORN NOW brochures, because an expensive army of postal cops sees to it; and
(2) I'm not PAYING to receive mail by the piece or the pound. More junk
mail from Pennysaver and Hold Everything just means I don't have to buy
starter logs for the fireplace.
By comparison, Internet commerce is unregulated; and while I don't like
listening to sleazeball operators defend "free speach[sic]" any more than
the next person, I worry about what babies we would end up throwing out with
their bathwater. As any of us list managers who have received silly "No
relaying, die spammer" Sendmail error messages from some overzealous
net.paranoid's site (in response to a perfectly good Digest or membership
probe) can attest, one person's Useful Content can all too easily look like
another person's UCE Spam when the suspicion level rises high enough.
Here's a question: if the Net were so tightly regulated that spammers were
automatically busted by an expensive army of content cops, could YOU get
anything useful done without wallowing in red tape and cautious
triple-checks of every word you said? More to the point, should the small
fraction who answer that question today with a light-hearted "yes, no
problem!" - because for them the Net basically still IS a toy -
automatically have the right to call the shots? I'm just asking. If the
answer's yes, then email ultimately remains a toy -- and the market will
find another protocol. If the answer's no, then we need some solutions.
The argument that users shouldn't have to pay extra to download unsolicited
junk email is more persuasive, but why should it apply just to commercial
messages? I shouldn't have to pay to download 15K re-quoted Digests that
bounced off some yokel's misconfigured mailer. I shouldn't have to pay to
download urban-legend FCC petitions or "I know this is off topic but you
just have to laugh at this one!" mailroom humor that's chain-forwarded from
clueless semi-strangers who happen to have my address. I shouldn't have to
pay for any email I didn't specifically expect, request, or pre-authorize.
But who IS going to pay for it - Oprah Winfrey? A slush fund at MAE-EAST?
Until and unless we adopt some kind of sender-pays model that supports
preauthorized COD for subscribing users, we are always going to have this
problem. And I'm not sure that kind of model will ever happen. More
likely, Web-induced bandwidth explosion is going to finesse the issue by
making it so cheap to get ANY amount of mail, solicited or otherwise, that
the postal-mailbox analogy once again applies: you may grumble at the junk,
but it's not impoverishing you.
In the meantime, we are in a chaotic interregnum with a few recognizable
features, and a few things we can do. One, users do have some options to
protect themselves against spam, like publishing a Bigfoot or Pobox address
and letting those services do the filtering. Unfortunately, (a) configuring
this properly with a garden variety ISP like Netcom or AOL or MSN is just
tricky enough to be out of the reach of most users; (b) the well-meaning
cabal of net demigods who call the email shots today didn't invent that
approach, don't use it themselves, and generally hold it in dim regard; and
(c) it is actually subject to occasional abuse by hit-and-run spammers,
which means that your own legitimate stuff may stop being delivered. There
are also spam protections in recent versions of Sendmail, but this is an
arms race and users seldom have any choices over how it's being waged in
their name.
Two, there is a code of conduct for ISP's, partly self propelled but also
partly "enforced" by a volunteer strike force of net.cops who watch for
abuse. Vanity domain forwarders (like our friend at NetNames) should
remember that virtual hosting is still hosting: if someone uses your
machines to forward spam mail OR spam responses, you are abetting spam and
you should stop it lest you put your legitimate customers at risk. Arguing
about it here will do no good whatsoever; the domain will be added to the
watch lists and undoing it will take months. Having said this, I must admit
(and the soldiers of the jihad should realize) that it's MUCH harder to
catch a receive-side drop box than a send-side spam forwarder. You end up
playing fireman to every user's complaint -- usually after the fact and
after the damage has been done. Hardened spammers hit once and move on.
What can we do?
(1) Create more resources for users, like help on installing spam
protection and info on where to report abuse. Teach rather than browbeat.
(2) Create more resources for list managers and net admins to share, like
registries of legitimate list publishing points so that our distribution can
survive as the barriers keep rising, and libraries of configuration tricks
and explanatory message texts for use in handling spam/noise issues. Beat
your swords into FAQ files.
(3) Pressure companies to incorporate flexible spam protection in their own
products - and to prevent unnecessary junk email on their own services.
(One example is warranty registrations and free-trial surveys that bury a
sneaky "Please send me junk mail" checkbox down at the bottom, turned ON by
default, and sometimes even RE-enabled after you turned it off, when you
have to correct an entry before submitting!)
(4) Read more, learn more, think more, reinvent the wheel less, re-argue
the flat earth less, and just generally behave like good people when we can.
Life's too short.
As I say, pass this on at will. Happy Groundhog Day.
--
Tom Neff
tneff@panix.com
From list-managers-owner Wed Feb 3 21:36:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA06626; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA06613 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:08:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6])
by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA10684;
Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:14:28 -0600
Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA19692; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:14:26 -0600
From: Mike Nolan
Message-Id: <199902040514.XAA19692@celery.tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Pay for use?
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:14:26 -0600 (CST)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199902031423.JAA20321@ctc.swva.net> from "Bernie Cosell" at Feb 3, 99 09:23:05 am
Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Bernie, thanks for a much better written synopsis of Internet history and
alternate theories of reality than I could have come up with on my own.
> Places like Amazon and buy.com and friends would trivially pay the minor
> transaction costs to run their web sites [although they might thing twice
> about the fancy graphics].
If anything, I think a transaction pricing model might have sped up the
development of commercial traffic on the net, and the acceptable use
guidelines might have gotten modified quicker, though perhaps it wasn't
large-scale viable until the killer app, the web, came along.
> Businesses were *dieing* to get connected and they would surely have
> connected right up as soon as it became legal.
Which might have happened a bit faster, since the backbones would have
seen commercial transaction billing as a revenue source.
> And think about some other things: if sysops got *billed* for their net
> usage, do you think there'd be many open/anonymous servers misconfigured
> out there? And so in addition to [IMO] doing a lot to cut down on spam,
> it'd also [again, IMO] have put a BIG crimp in the hacker-attack
> problems.
And just because it's always been that way (even if it hasn't, really),
that's no reason to say that it must forever stay that way. The one
lesson we never seem to learn in the computer industry is that limits
of any kind exist mostly to be exceeded or made archaic, whether that be
640K memory, the IP address space, or in this case the pricing model.
--
Mike Nolan
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 10:00:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA19665; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA19658 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate6-65.cyberlink.ch [212.55.195.65])
by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13151
for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:47:36 +0100
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03857;
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:46:55 +0100
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:46:55 +0100
Message-Id: <199902041746.SAA03857@quill.thinkcoach.com>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-reply-to: <199902041547.QAA03402@quill.thinkcoach.com> (message from
Michael C. Berch on Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:37:48 -0800)
Subject: Re: The spam discussion
References: <199902012137.NAA18514@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Michael C. Berch , the List-Managers list manager
wrote:
> There are a number of such forums on the Net, both mailing lists and
> newsgroups, and much of the recent discussion really belongs there.
Yes... last time this topic came up I was the one who suggested this,
and I created a mailing list named 'rationet' for discussing this idea
of rationally designing a new suite of protocols which would allow every
network service to be associated with an exchange of some "virtual
money". Unfortunately the discussion died intead of moving to the new
list. Maybe we'll have better luck this time?
Anyone who is interested in discussing this further, please send a
command 'subscribe rationet' to majordomo@thinkcoach.com - please
help to keep the discussion alive :)
-- Norbert.
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 10:42:24 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA19691; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA19683 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (ivan3.netnames.co.uk [195.40.150.142])
by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA15634
for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:46:55 GMT
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:39:49 +0000
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
From: Ivan Pope
Subject: List tool question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
If anyone still wants to talk to me after that Spam thing that just
happened, I have a question. It's really why I joined this list in the
first place.
We all know that the tools available to us for running and managing lists
are inadequate. Spam is just one facet of this. I have always found the
absoluteness of lists a pain: what I mean by this is the existence of lots
of semi-parallel lists on subjects that cross over a lot. I don't really
want to belong to all of them, but cross posting is an art, not a science.
And then there are those times when lists go all pear shaped and I'd rather
not be on them (spam debates anyone?). But I'm nervous to sign off in case
I don't get back on again (memory lapse etc). And then there is the
knowledge that there are probably a lot of people out there who I would
like to see on this list, but I don't know how to invite them (or even who
they are, and its not my list even).
All in all, I think we are missing a large part of the potential of the
Internet because our tools are primitive.
So what tools would you like to see added to mailing lists? How do you see
mailling lists evolving? Where do we go from here? Will lists merge with
other forms (eGroups for example has done something to evolve the form, if
not much).
I ask these questions because its been bugging me for a few years now and I
want to think about solutions.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Ivan
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 18:56:44 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA25985; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isns2.shasta.com (isns2.shasta.com [207.16.64.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id SAA25976 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 24699 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 03:42:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO J) (207.16.67.12)
by mail.shasta.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 03:42:58 -0000
Message-ID: <000c01be50b2$616d33e0$064310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Reply-To: "J. R. Molloy"
From: "J. R. Molloy"
To: , "Ivan Pope"
Subject: Re: List tool question
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:50:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Ivan Pope wrote,
>All in all, I think we are missing a large part of the potential of the
>Internet because our tools are primitive.
Do inferior craftsmen blame their tools? The Internet misses a large part of
our potential when we fail to create sufficiently compelling content.
Cheers,
J. R. Molloy
>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸>
Evolution of Complex Adaptive Systems: hyperplexity-subscribe@onelist.com
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸>
>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸>¸.
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 22:24:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA28147; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA28140 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA39446
; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:59:06 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:54:58 -0800
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: A bit of a gloat.
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Excuse me for a bit of a gloat, but I hit a nice milestone today.
The number of subscriptions on the lists I operate broke one million
today. Which is truly fun, since I remember when there weren't a
million people on the net, worldwide.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 22:40:57 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA28138; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isns2.shasta.com (isns2.shasta.com [207.16.64.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA28131 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13667 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 06:51:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO J) (207.16.67.11)
by mail.shasta.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 06:51:14 -0000
Message-ID: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Reply-To: "J. R. Molloy"
From: "J. R. Molloy"
To:
Subject: Re: List tool question
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:58:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Chuq Von Rospach wrote,
>The big problem is, we built hammers years ago, and put a lot of
>effort into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the
>same for screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer
>for everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
"other technologies"? Name three.
--J. R.
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 22:58:58 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA27949; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA27942 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA08722
; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:36:45 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <000c01be50b2$616d33e0$064310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:27:07 -0800
To: "J. R. Molloy" , ,
"Ivan Pope"
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Do inferior craftsmen blame their tools? The Internet misses a large part of
> our potential when we fail to create sufficiently compelling content.
On the other hand, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts
looking like a nail.
Mailing lists are a really nice hammer, but not everything lends
itself to being a nail. For many years, we've used mail lists to
distribute information because mailing lists were what we had. Lists
are very good for some things, but that doesn't mean they're
appropriate for all things.
The big problem is, we built hammers years ago, and put a lot of
effort into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the
same for screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer
for everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 23:02:08 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA28156; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA28149 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA33330
; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:59:33 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:52:55 -0800
To: Ivan Pope , list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 5:39 PM +0000 2/4/99, Ivan Pope wrote:
> I have always found the
> absoluteness of lists a pain: what I mean by this is the existence of lots
> of semi-parallel lists on subjects that cross over a lot. I don't really
> want to belong to all of them, but cross posting is an art, not a science.
This is in reality a feature, not a bug. The parallel aspect of lists
is wonderful, because of its encouragement of diversity.
Imagine living in a city iwth one bar, where both the bikers and the
sports fans have to live together (along with the gays, the singles,
the drunks, the cops, and everyone else). How well does that work?
Not very. Instead, even though all of these bars are parallel, in
that they serve the same basic purpose (people go there to drink and
socialize), nobody suggests we should do away with all those bars,
nor do people feel they should be in all of the bars, in case they
miss a conversation they might want to be part of.
One of the realities of the internet you have to learn to deal with
is that there are going to be discussions going on you won't run
into, just like the discussions going on in bars around the city. the
positive of the Net is that you literally CAN be in dozens of "bars"
at once -- then the trick comes to finding time to soaking up all of
the conversations (and dumping the ones you don't care of). Rather
than complain about the sheer number of conversations, since that's
tilting at windmills, rejoice in it, and use it to your advantage --
find those bars that you find most interesting adn useful, stay in
those, and jetison the rest.
> So what tools would you like to see added to mailing lists? How do you see
> mailling lists evolving? Where do we go from here?
First, much of what goes on as far as discussion lists is moving to
the web, and will continue moving to the web. But second, the web is
going to suck up mailing lists as it does. I've spent a good chunk of
time on this with a web-forum vendor, and there's some really nice
web-discussion/email integration over the horizon. If it works the
way we expect it will, it's gonna be fun. Stay tuned, since I can't
talk about details yet.
But if you don't like how mailing lists work, web forums are the next
step forward. But be aware, it won't solve your basic complaint --
there are still going to be dozens of bars you wish you had time to
spend time in. But that diversity is a good thing, not a bad thing.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Thu Feb 4 23:13:46 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA28702; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA28695 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom11.netcom.com [192.100.81.121])
by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA17817;
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990204215700.00a8dc80@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:57:00 -0800
To: Ivan Pope
From: SRE
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At last, something useful.
At 05:39 PM 2/4/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote:
>So what tools would you like to see added to mailing lists? How do you see
>mailling lists evolving? Where do we go from here?
I'd like to see more done with sublists and superlists. Listserv has the
idea of "topics", that allow people to pre-filter list traffic at the
server (but only if posters agree to use topics properly). Anyone with
a capable mail client can do similar filtering (based on subject line
syntax) at the receiving end but that's less efficient.
Anyway, topics to pre-filter msgs aren't enough. What you really need
is a way to logically group recipients without the artificial boundary
of who is on which list.
Here's a real example: I run Climber.Org, which currently has over 20
email lists and over 700 people subscribed (some to many lists). How do
I send a message to all 700 people? If I send to all the lists, some
people will get 10 copies. I'll get 22 copies. Ouch. In this case I
need a super-list that avoids duplicates if you are on more than one
list to which I send the message. With 22 lists, it's not reasonable
to pre-determine all possible combinations... with fewer lists it would
be possible to have a periodic update job that created combo lists, but
then how would you determine when a post should go to which list? The
best way would be to have list management software "notice" the set of
lists being copied, and auto-create the combo list on the fly. Even if
you had THAT, how would you catch the posts that are sent to each list
one at a time instead of with a long CC or TO list?
If anyone has implemented anything CLOSE to what I described, I'd love
to hear about it.
SRE
mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/
Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org
Before email, five carbon copies were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 02:46:15 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA03123; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA03116 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [195.40.150.140] (ivan.netnames.co.uk [195.40.150.140])
by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05392;
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:27:10 GMT
X-Sender: ivan@human.netnames.net
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:26:46 +0100
To: Chuq Von Rospach
From: Ivan Pope
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>At 5:39 PM +0000 2/4/99, Ivan Pope wrote:
... the existence of lots
>> of semi-parallel lists on subjects that cross over a lot. I don't really
>> want to belong to all of them, but cross posting is an art, not a science.
>
>This is in reality a feature, not a bug. The parallel aspect of lists
>is wonderful, because of its encouragement of diversity.
>
>Imagine living in a city iwth one bar,
>One of the realities of the internet you have to learn to deal with
>is that there are going to be discussions going on you won't run
>into,
>Rather
>than complain about the sheer number of conversations, since that's
>tilting at windmills, rejoice in it, and use it to your advantage --
>find those bars that you find most interesting adn useful, stay in
>those, and jetison the rest.
I'm not complaining and I do rejoice in the number of conversations. If
anything, I want to encourage more. But - it is often difficult to get the
real value from lists because of their rather blunt nature. I have often
seen very interesting people leave lists in disgust because they don't want
to deal with the noise.
I think my issue was with the rather blunt nature of lists - one is either
on them or off them. This is a bit different to bars where you can drift
around, pick up on conversations, move from place to place.
Anyway, I don't like to use real world analogies when talking about the
Internet - its such a potentially different environment that it seems we
should try to invent new tools.
Of course, there are many perfectly fine mailing lists and then there are
lists that are like panning for gold.
>But if you don't like how mailing lists work, web forums are the next
>step forward. But be aware, it won't solve your basic complaint --
>there are still going to be dozens of bars you wish you had time to
>spend time in. But that diversity is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I think my basic complaint is that we can't take advantage of the diversity
out there without killing ourselves with traffic noise in the attempt.
Of course moving the same concepts to the Web isn't going to solve that. I
think we need much more subtle tools to do that. I was trying to think out
loud about what they might be.
Cheers,
Ivan
Ivan Pope ivan@netnames.com
NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY
http://www.netnames.com UK Freephone 0800 269049
180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK
+44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax
It's not about building a better mousetrap, it's about redefining the mouse.
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 08:19:02 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA09042; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA09035 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (lev@localhost)
by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07148;
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:56:38 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:56:38 -0500 (EST)
From: P Kayak
X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net
To: Ivan Pope
cc: Chuq Von Rospach ,
list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >At 5:39 PM +0000 2/4/99, Ivan Pope wrote:
> I think my issue was with the rather blunt nature of lists - one is either
> on them or off them. This is a bit different to bars where you can drift
> around, pick up on conversations, move from place to place.
Newsgroups, for some of us, are the not so hard-edge option.
>
> >But if you don't like how mailing lists work, web forums are the next
> >step forward. But
> >there are still going to be dozens of bars you wish...
This may be misleading. It steers us away from established,
tradition-or-habit/known channels.
A friend of mine - at least a couple years ago - was participating
in large chat groups. (He is a teacher of electronics & finishing
an advanced degree in sociology.) Was asking me about telephone
lines - since his connection out in the countryside was weaker
than mine. His group, besides exchanging typed commments and file
file transfers, was starting to want to pick up a telephone and
call someone - while modem contact was maintained.
Of course this is not in the direction of multi-conversations
in a bar, where it is easy to turn off and leave - but
multiconversationss at one table.
> I think my basic complaint is that we can't take advantage of the diversity
> out there without killing ourselves with traffic noise in the attempt.
> Of course moving the same concepts to the Web isn't going to solve that. I
> think we need much more subtle tools to do that. I was trying to think out
> loud about what they might be.
I agree noise is a serious concern. And I enjoy hearing you say subtle
tools could be to get through it. ('Get through' can be a ham radio
phrase.)
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
The terse is sometimes poetic.
- Paul
To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.
: - Oliver Wendell Holmes :
:....................................................................:
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 09:17:04 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA09802; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA09786 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Margy (max1-9.shoreham.net [208.144.253.11])
by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA27990
for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:49:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990205112003.00b46750@wingate>
X-Sender: margy@wingate
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:24:34 -0500
To:
From: Margaret Levine Young
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-Reply-To: <000c01be50b2$616d33e0$064310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Ivan Pope wrote,
>All in all, I think we are missing a large part of the potential of the
>Internet because our tools are primitive.
I agree! I realized a few months ago that I want an e-mail program that
will display by mailing list messages in a very different way that my
personal messages. I want to be able to track who posts on what topics, who
posts how often, who I've decided to ignore, who I particularly like, etc.
Yes, yes, I know that Usenet newsreaders have most of those features, and
that I can hack together such an e-mail program with UNIX tools, but
that's not the point.
If programs were widely available that were designed to make it easy to
participate in an e-mail-based discussion -- supporting the user's efforts
to keep track of who's who and what we're talking about -- mailing lists
would be far more useful.
Margy Levine Young
Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies," 5th Ed. and "Windows 98: The
Complete Reference"
Looking for kids' videos? Check out
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 09:17:04 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA09801; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA09788 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Margy (max1-9.shoreham.net [208.144.253.11])
by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA27993
for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:49:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990205112629.00b4b3d0@wingate>
X-Sender: margy@wingate
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:28:53 -0500
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
From: Margaret Levine Young
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> So what tools would you like to see added to mailing lists? How do you see
> mailling lists evolving? Where do we go from here?
I'd love to see much better tools (probably web-based) for list managers
and site managers. As a site manager, I'd like to be able to see current
and historical statistics for all the lists, be flagged when a list manager
changes certain list settings, be flagged when lists fall below set
thresholds of subscribers and/or traffic, and be able to ask questions like
"Which lists are moderated?" or "Which lists does John Smith manage?" easily.
Margy Levine Young
Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies," 5th Ed. and "Windows 98: The
Complete Reference"
Looking for kids' videos? Check out
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 09:34:20 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA10175; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA10168 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA36422
; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:12:33 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
<3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:42:44 -0800
To: Ivan Pope , Chuq Von Rospach
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 10:26 AM +0100 2/5/99, Ivan Pope wrote:
> But - it is often difficult to get the
> real value from lists because of their rather blunt nature. I have often
> seen very interesting people leave lists in disgust because they don't want
> to deal with the noise.
What you consider blunt others would consider energized.
The best lists are ones with strong character and personalities.
That's because the best lists have people who are interested in them
and involved in them. And that implies an energy level. And when you
have people with strong interest and feelings in a subject, there are
going to be disagreements. And disagreements get blunt.
Lists without aspects of this bluntness tend to be rather boring, and
to be honest, don't tend to have a lot of interesting material. To
stick to my bar analogy and see if I can push it to a level of
silliness way beyond it deserves, what you're asking for is the
excitement of a biker bar, but you're demanding the bikers be polite
in your company. Life just doesn't work that way. The best
information comes from people with the knowledge of the subject, and
with that knowledge comes a opinion and attitude. And trust me, you
can't get the knowledge without getting some of the opinion and
attitude that comes with it.
You also get people with strong opinions and no knowledge, but that's
also part of real life. Just spend time in a sports bar and you'll
see them all over the place.
> Anyway, I don't like to use real world analogies when talking about the
> Internet
That's too bad. Because the internet IS part of the real world, and
comparing on-line paradigms to real world ones helps us understand
them. Both by how the comparison works and where it fails.
> Of course, there are many perfectly fine mailing lists and then there are
> lists that are like panning for gold.
And isn't that just like the real world?
> I think my basic complaint is that we can't take advantage of the diversity
> out there without killing ourselves with traffic noise in the attempt.
Sure you can. But I think you're looking in the wrong place. you're
looking at server technologies to solve your problem. What you really
want is an intelligent client agent to sift through this and give you
the parts you want. No server will solve that -- every user will want
their own version of it.
Customized agents were hot three or four years ago, but faded,
because they are amazingly tough to build well (and you can't put
clickads on them). But go take a look at Apple's Sherlock as one
small step in that direction. It's truly cool.
One long term system I'm working on is a way to allow us to
mass-distribute information customized on a per-user basis. You'll
NEVER do that via mail lists, but once other technologies mature
we'll be able to do it. But even THAt doesn't solve your problem on a
global scale. you'll still need client technologies both to filter
and sift and evaluate, but also to go searching for information
sources to add to the input stream for your filters.
(and none of this is new. Go read Shockwave Rider, published back in
1976, and see just how close he got...)
> Of course moving the same concepts to the Web isn't going to solve that. I
> think we need much more subtle tools to do that. I was trying to think out
> loud about what they might be.
You want an electronic personal secretary, who reads your inbox,
throws out the junk mail, and files everything else in mailboxes
marked "urgent", "useful" and "I don't know"....
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 09:48:26 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA10467; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ect.uce.ac.uk (mail.ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.138.236]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA10460 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.136.24] by mail.ect.uce.ac.uk
with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 1.76 $; Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:20:11 +0000 (BST)
Message-ID: <36BB2CE6.AF681D48@ect.uce.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:39:50 +0000
From: Richard Kay
Organization: UCE
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Pope
CC: Chuq Von Rospach ,
list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
References: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> I think my basic complaint is that we can't take advantage of the
> diversity
> out there without killing ourselves with traffic noise in the attempt.
> Of course moving the same concepts to the Web isn't going to solve
> that. I
> think we need much more subtle tools to do that. I was trying to
> think out
> loud about what they might be.
>
I heard of a proprietary discussion list server
used internally within ICL to discuss tech support with an interesting
feature in this connection. Everyone on the list gets to see the
first posting for a new thread and if they are interesed in this
registers the fact with the list server by asking to have further
messages in that thread sent to them. Possibly this could be handled
by forwarding an empty message with same or similar (within
certain bounds) subject line to the listserver. So if the
list generates say 10 new threads a day, recipients need only
receive 10 messages - plus followups to the threads which
interest them.
Usefulness of this protocol would depend upon those continueing
a thread renaming it when the topic discussed diverges
sufficiently to justify a new named thread.
Richard Kay
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 10:24:33 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA11077; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA11070 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA33090
; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:12:03 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:49:41 -0800
To: "J. R. Molloy" ,
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 9:58 PM -0800 2/4/99, J. R. Molloy wrote:
>>effort into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the
>>same for screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer
>>for everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
>
> "other technologies"? Name three.
Web-based discussion forums.
Real-time chat. Whether web based or whatever.
Streaming audio.
Streaming video.
That's off the top of my head. Some of these, like web forums, are
now maturing. Some, like the streaming technologies, are just
starting to be looked at seriously.
I could probably toss a few more in there if I stopped to think about
it for a while, but what the heck.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 12:48:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA12878; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maximpact.net ([151.196.219.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA12869 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (ken@localhost)
by maximpact.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA14457;
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:58:43 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:58:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Gourlay
X-Sender: ken@maximpact.net
To: "J. R. Molloy"
cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-Reply-To: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Yes, J. R., there are other technologies besides mailing lists.
web pages
web-based discussion boards
search databases
FAQ sheets
FTP sites
chat rooms
and those are only some of the well-developed technoligies. The really
exciting stuff comes in when you look at technologies that haven't been
used much, or technologies that haven't been used at all. Consider, for
example, the following sorts of questions: what would it be like if
subscribers could search or filter list content to get only the
information they want, rather than wading through thousands of irrelevent
messages? How could we combine real-time chat rooms with ongoing list
discussions, and with what benefits? How can we use "superlists" and
"sublists" to make communication with the right people easier and more
effective? How can web technologies benefit online discussions more? How
might an interactive and dynamic FAQ sheet work?
With the speed that technology changes, it seems short-sighted at best to
assume that any one technology is the best for any particular task.
----------------------
Ken Gourlay
Chain Communications
----------------------
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, J. R. Molloy wrote:
>
> Chuq Von Rospach wrote,
> >The big problem is, we built hammers years ago, and put a lot of
> >effort into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the
> >same for screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer
> >for everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
>
> "other technologies"? Name three.
>
> --J. R.
>
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 17:59:07 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16642; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:14:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA16632 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange.di.com (exchange.di.com [209.64.54.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA29558 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by exchange.di.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <1HS6DF4H>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:30:32 -0800
Message-ID:
From: Todd Day
To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'"
Subject: flat rate world
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:30:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
If SPAM is the penalty I have to live with for living in a "flat rate" world,
I'll take it. Flat rates are what allow some of the coolest websites out there
to ride invisibly on the coattails of corporate and educational sites. Flat
rates are what allow the "little guys" to reach a wide audience.
Long distance is just 3-5 years from going to a flat rate system. Hell, it has
kinda sorta happened already. Why take the net in the opposite direction, just
to stop SPAMmers?
-todd-
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 18:08:32 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16404; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA16396 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA16000 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:17:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 99 8:26:56 EST
From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: A viral issue for you to be aware of
Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Message-ID: <9902040826.aa04448@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
One of my lists got hit yesterday by the so-called Win32/Ska.A worm
. This sucker slipped by our
attachment filters because it replicates by uuencoding itself and making
that uuencoded (ie, text file) the BODY of an outgoing mail msg. No MIME or
other info is included with it.
You can filter on the header line it adds:
X-Spanska: YES
Or on the beginning of the uuencoded data, which reads:
begin 644
(I'm filtering, in majordomo, on /^begin 6/i)
Just FYI...
Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer
http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 18:22:41 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16498; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA16488 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.198.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA24118 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely [207.155.198.83])
by darius.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(98/12/15 5.12))
id TAA17233; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:01:45 -0500 (EST)
[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Received: from wildchild (ts002d18.tul-ok.concentric.net [206.173.148.78])
by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.9.1a)
id TAA28165; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199902050001.TAA28165@mcfeely.concentric.net>
From: "Angus"
Organization: Down On DaFarm
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:02:08 -0600
Subject: Re: List tool question
Reply-to: angus1@cris.com
In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01a)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> managing lists are inadequate. Spam is just one facet of this. I have
> always found the absoluteness of lists a pain: what I mean by this is the
I've had so little spam come via the lists I own or subscribe too.. that for me,
anyway, it's not a problem. I think Listserv seems to offer some pretty good
protections from that... or as good as it can get on the net... and of course making
use of those protections are up to the listowner and the subscribers too I guess.
Spam I get in spades from web access harvesting and from those #$#(&% that
harvest web pages themselves ... but in all these years.. I can easily count on one
hand I think.. the spam I've gotten because of email lists.
...Cleo angus1@cris.com
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 18:38:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16653; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA16645 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:14:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange.di.com (exchange.di.com [209.64.54.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA00275 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by exchange.di.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <1HS6DF4Z>; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:19:20 -0800
Message-ID:
From: Todd Day
To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'"
Subject: RE: flat rate world
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:19:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
BUT: what it woudl have done would have almost certainly made schools be
-responsible- for their use, and cut down on the really crazy "let's eat more
bandwidth because it is fun and free" hacks they pursued [where iguanacam is
probably my favorite exemplar for that kind of thing, and just think that there
might not have been as much of a "september effect"]
Sorry for my previous post that was clearly off topic. I'll try to tie it in
here. How many of us list managers would run their lists if they had to pay for
every message they sent? I know I wouldn't. I would have to actually start
running a business, billing everyone on my list for receiving the message so I
could recover my costs. Then I might not feel like letting just anyone browse
my list archives for free, either. I don't see this economic model being very
compatible with advancing a powerful form of communication. When you don't have
to worry about paying for every letter you type, you are much more likely to
express yourself better and more completely and in ways you might not have
thought about before.
It is my firm belief that the vast amount of bandwidth available on tap to all
comers is what makes the Internet such an exciting communications device in the
first place.
-todd-
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 19:15:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA18318; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA18311 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:34:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15428
; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:43:55 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:18:53 -0800
To: Ken Gourlay , "J. R. Molloy"
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 2:58 PM -0500 2/5/99, Ken Gourlay wrote:
> Yes, J. R., there are other technologies besides mailing lists.
gopher! we forgot gopher sites!
(ducking)
> FAQ sheets
Forgot that, and it's an important one. It is, likely, THE KEY way to
generate and propogate knowledge bases over time. List experts come,
babble, and burn out, but as long as you can keep the FAQ updated,
you can survive having your resident know-it-all get married and
decide to have a life....
>> >The big problem is, we built hammers years ago, and put a lot of
>> >effort into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the
>> >same for screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer
>> >for everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
>>
>> "other technologies"? Name three.
Someone's so used to hammers they've decided no other tools exist! (grin)
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 19:27:54 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA18300; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA18293 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19512
; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:43:52 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990205112003.00b46750@wingate>
References: <000c01be50b2$616d33e0$064310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:16:17 -0800
To: Margaret Levine Young ,
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 11:24 AM -0500 2/5/99, Margaret Levine Young wrote:
> I agree! I realized a few months ago that I want an e-mail program that
> will display by mailing list messages in a very different way that my
> personal messages.
I've had that for years. I use eudora, but any mail client with even
rudimentary filtering can do this. I filter all of my mail lists into
separate folders, one per list.
I even take it futher using procmail -- since I read my personal
e-mail address both at home and at work, I use a set of procmail
rules to parse out e-mail between mail to be left at home, and mail
to be read at work, so that stuff (like list-managers, for instance)
that I don't want to deal with at work during the day doesn't even
appear in my mailbox until I'm ready for it.
By filtering all of the list mail out of my main mailbox, I can
easily ignore it until I'm ready to read lists, so none of it gets in
the way of the "real" e-mail.
> I want to be able to track who posts on what topics, who
> posts how often, who I've decided to ignore, who I particularly like, etc.
Ignoring is also trivial with rudimentary filters.
> If programs were widely available that were designed to make it easy to
> participate in an e-mail-based discussion -- supporting the user's efforts
> to keep track of who's who and what we're talking about -- mailing lists
> would be far more useful.
these tools have existed for a while -- Eudora, Claris eMailer, most
mail clients do a huge part of what you're asking for, and have. On
the unix side, there are mailers like Pine, or you can move to
procmail if you want to get really fancy. This technology actually
isn't new, unless you use AOL's mail.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Fri Feb 5 23:18:42 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA23270; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA23255 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04785; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 22:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA24923;
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:12:19 -0800
To: angus1@cris.com
cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:02:08 -0600.
<199902050001.TAA28165@mcfeely.concentric.net>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette"
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 23:12:19 -0800
Message-ID: <24921.918285139@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In message <199902050001.TAA28165@mcfeely.concentric.net>,
"Angus" wrote:
>Spam I get in spades from web access harvesting and from those #$#(&% that
>harvest web pages themselves ...
Please visit:
http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
fetch it, install it, and that should innoculate your site from any further
harvesting by spammers.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
"Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
-- Steve Atkins
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 01:33:40 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA24474; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.greatbasin.net (mail.greatbasin.net [207.228.35.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA24467 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (rno-max6-56.gbis.net [207.228.61.184])
by mail.greatbasin.net (8.9.2/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA01298;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199902060900.BAA01298@mail.greatbasin.net>
From: "Jim Poston"
Organization: The Information Dirt Road
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:02:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: sub/superlist (Was Re: List tool question)
Reply-to: jim.poston@usa.net
CC: SRE
In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990204215700.00a8dc80@pop.climber.org>
References: <3.0.32.19990204173922.0099a100@mail.netnames.co.uk>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 4 Feb 99, at 21:57, SRE wrote:
> I'd like to see more done with sublists and superlists.
Same here.
> If anyone has implemented anything CLOSE to what I described, I'd
> love to hear about it.
The Pegasus Mail support lists are close to what you've described.
There are separate sublists for PM-Win, PM-DOS, Mercury, etc. Any
mail that goes to those lists is automatically echoed to the PMAIL
list (the superlist), which also accepts mail to it.
The downside is that some users who don't quite have the concept down
send messages to a sublist, and also to the master list. Then the
master list ends up with dupes.
This is all happening at LISTSERV@BAMA.UA.EDU.
-- Jim
jim.poston@usa.net
<<< It's a ... nice day for a ... white wedding! >>>
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 05:48:25 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA00939; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA00926 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate6-82.cyberlink.ch [212.55.195.82])
by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA26315
for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:37:11 +0100
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01714;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:36:38 +0100
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:36:38 +0100
Message-Id: <199902061336.OAA01714@quill.thinkcoach.com>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: (message
from Todd Day on Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:19:19 -0800)
Subject: Re: flat rate world
References:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Todd Day wrote:
> here. How many of us list managers would run their lists if they had
> to pay for every message they sent?
Well, in today's internet, if the lists are big enough it surely costs
someone real money to host them.
What Mike Nolan and I have been talking about is an idea that would
allow the entire cost of hosting even a big list to be paid by the
subscribers. This cost per subscriber would be very cheap (probably
barely noticable, see below).
> When you don't have to worry about paying for every letter you type,
> you are much more likely to express yourself better and more
> completely and in ways you might not have thought about before.
Hmm... let's see, if a payment system could be introduced which does not
create administrative overhead, what would be the postage for a 10KB
e-mail message?
At a server farm like Digiserve (see http://www.digiserve.com) you can
transfer about 150MB of data for one dollar. So the price of the
internet connection bandwidth which is required for sending a 10KB
e-mail message is about US-$0.000067
A similar amount of connection bandwidth is required at the receiving
end, therefore "international priority" postage for the 10KB e-mail
message should come to about US-$0.00013
Since the postage for sending the copies of the message from the
mailing list server to the recipients would be paid by the recipients,
when you post to the list you will only have to pay for getting your
message to the mailing list server, allowing you to make 75 posts of
10KB each for a single cent.
I don't think that this would deter anyone from expressing himself
freely in any e-mail discussion (whether on-list or not).
Of course, participating in a mailing list that generates a lot of
traffic will cost something: 1 cent for every 750KB of mailing list
traffic.
If people feel that this is too much, then there will be ways of
reducing _both_ the real cost and the perceived cost of mailing
list traffic. For example, strategically-placed smarthosts could be
used to reduce the amount of traffic through key bottlenecks such as
the intercontinental links. Also, on non-saturated networks where most
of the traffic comes from interactive applications (such as telnet,
browsing the web, streamed audio and video) it should be possible to
take advantage of the fluctuations in the intensity of that kind of
traffic to transfer emails during those seconds when the intensity of
interactive traffic is relatively low.
> It is my firm belief that the vast amount of bandwidth available on
> tap to all comers is what makes the Internet such an exciting
> communications device in the first place.
Yes. It's good that we have a vast amount of bandwidth available.
But that does not justify wasting any of it.
May blessings from the eternal God surprise and overtake you!
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland. Backup e-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 08:13:50 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA02032; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isns2.shasta.com (isns2.shasta.com [207.16.64.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA02025 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30853 invoked from network); 6 Feb 1999 15:48:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO J) (207.16.67.8)
by mail.shasta.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 1999 15:48:55 -0000
Message-ID: <003b01be51e8$d24125e0$084310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Reply-To: "J. R. Molloy"
From: "J. R. Molloy"
To:
Subject: Re: List tool question
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 06:43:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>Yes, J. R., there are other technologies besides mailing lists.
>
>web pages
>web-based discussion boards
>search databases
>FAQ sheets
>FTP sites
>chat rooms
So a ball peen hammer, a rubber mallet, a gavel, a maul, and a sledge hammer
represent five different technologies? I don't think so. You've mentioned
but a single technology here: digital transmission using TCP/IP. The rest
comprises variations on a theme. --J. R.
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 08:29:27 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA02084; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:48:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA02077 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA13574;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA10267;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:54:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA14799;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:54:34 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame
To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: A viral issue for you to be aware of
In-Reply-To: <9902040826.aa04448@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer wrote:
> You can filter on the header line it adds:
>
> X-Spanska: YES
>
> Or on the beginning of the uuencoded data, which reads:
>
> begin 644
I believe the second filter would catch more UUEncoded attachments.
I'm still amazed that someone would write an Email client which will
blindly decode and execute attachments.
- murr -
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 11:32:30 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA04458; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maximpact.net ([151.196.219.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA04451 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:15:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (ken@localhost)
by maximpact.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12457;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:14:15 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:14:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Gourlay
X-Sender: ken@maximpact.net
To: Norbert Bollow
cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: flat rate world
In-Reply-To: <199902061336.OAA01714@quill.thinkcoach.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Hmm... let's see, if a payment system could be introduced which does not
> create administrative overhead, what would be the postage for a 10KB
> e-mail message?
>
> At a server farm like Digiserve (see http://www.digiserve.com) you can
> transfer about 150MB of data for one dollar. So the price of the
> internet connection bandwidth which is required for sending a 10KB
> e-mail message is about US-$0.000067
>
> A similar amount of connection bandwidth is required at the receiving
> end, therefore "international priority" postage for the 10KB e-mail
> message should come to about US-$0.00013
Assuming these numbers are accurate, which I wouldn't doubt, do you
suppose that such charges would slow down a spammer at all? As I
understand it, they're probably paying at least 100 times that per e-mail
address. What's another hundredth of a cent to put your ad directly in
someone's e-mail box?
Furthermore, I can't imagine a situation any time soon where the
administrative overhead could be reasonable. Ideally, there will be a
time when online financial transactions can happen cheaply, but now it's
probably $0.25 to $1 per transaction for something like an online credit
card order.
I'm not saying necessarily that charging like this is a bad idea, but it
hardly seems worth it for what the actual cost is. corporations and ISPs
don't seem to mind paying the fractions of pennies for their customers to
use the Internet. I think the individuals *would* mind the hassle. I
know I get really annoyed when I have to sit down and write a check for
twelve cents... As it stands, the ISPs are, for the most part, getting
the bill. They pass their cost on to their customers, who pay a flat
monthly rate. It's easy, and everyone's reasonably happy. It's not clear
exactly who's paying what for who's services, but people are getting their
business done and having fun with the Internet too.
I agree wholeheartedly with you about conservation of bandwidth: there's
no excuse for wasting it, but there's a difference between wasting
bandwidth and utilizing bandwidth. Generally speaking, if the bandwith is
there it seems a shame not to do something with it, even if that something
is as trivial as a streaming video image of a fish tank.
-- Ken
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 11:48:33 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA04644; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:24:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maximpact.net ([151.196.219.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA04637 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (ken@localhost)
by maximpact.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12555;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:22:36 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:22:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Gourlay
X-Sender: ken@maximpact.net
To: Chuq Von Rospach
cc: Margaret Levine Young ,
list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Indeed, these technologies have really been around as long as e-mail
itself. However, I tend to believe that there have been no widely
available and easy to use technologies specifically designed to facilitate
e-mail list type discussions. Consider the messes we'd have if we gave
every AOL user procmail.
Eudora, or some other mail client, makes it a little easier to do stuff,
but I think it'd be even nicer if there was a tool especially for mailing
lists. If I see a message that looks interesting, I want to be able to
find out more about who sent it (what other messages, perhaps some
personal background info, etc.) with one click. Likewise, if someone
sounds like a blabbering idiot and I don't care to read their attempts at
posts, I want to be able to ignore them, with one click. To my knowledge,
no program exists to satisfy these sorts of needs.
----------------------
Ken Gourlay
Chain Communications
----------------------
> > If programs were widely available that were designed to make it easy to
> > participate in an e-mail-based discussion -- supporting the user's efforts
> > to keep track of who's who and what we're talking about -- mailing lists
> > would be far more useful.
>
> these tools have existed for a while -- Eudora, Claris eMailer, most
> mail clients do a huge part of what you're asking for, and have. On
> the unix side, there are mailers like Pine, or you can move to
> procmail if you want to get really fancy. This technology actually
> isn't new, unless you use AOL's mail.
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 12:17:27 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA04895; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:56:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA04888 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA42648
; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:07:23 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <003b01be51e8$d24125e0$084310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:43:28 -0800
To: "J. R. Molloy" ,
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 6:43 AM -0800 2/6/99, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> So a ball peen hammer, a rubber mallet, a gavel, a maul, and a sledge hammer
> represent five different technologies? I don't think so.
You have a really funny definition of hammers, J.R. but if you insist
on defining everything as hammers, it's no use arguing with you on
terminology, so I won't.
But frankly, I think you're simply doing this to not have to admit
being wrong, not because it makes sense.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 12:53:50 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA05239; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA05229 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boofura.swcp.com (boofura.swcp.com [198.59.115.28]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA08475 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by boofura.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id IAA10979 for list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:17:42 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:17:42 -0700
From: Lazlo Nibble
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
Message-ID: <19990205081742.B10894@swcp.com>
Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
References: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <000601be50cc$aee8dec0$0b4310cf@J.R.Molloy>; from J. R. Molloy on Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:58:50PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:58:50PM -0800, J. R. Molloy wrote:
>> The big problem is, we built hammers years ago, and put a lot of effort
>> into making really good hammers. But we're just now doing the same for
>> screwdrivers and table saws, so we tend to use the hammer for
>> everything, even if other technologies make more sense.
>
> "other technologies"? Name three.
1) Newsgroups
2) Web Boards
3) Chat Rooms
--
Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com
--
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 13:07:41 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA05647; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isns2.shasta.com (isns2.shasta.com [207.16.64.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA05633 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2997 invoked from network); 6 Feb 1999 20:53:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO J) (207.16.67.4)
by mail.shasta.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 1999 20:53:15 -0000
Message-ID: <019001be5213$56d66520$084310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Reply-To: "J. R. Molloy"
From: "J. R. Molloy"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: List tool question
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:55:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>But frankly, I think you're simply doing this to not have to admit
>being wrong, not because it makes sense.
No, I objected to your specious statement that other technologies exist
because I had hoped you might supply some actual examples of same. Instead I
find you indulging your arrogance and ignorance.
You sir, have acted insensibly. In addition, to cover your ignorance, you
fail to post these messages to the list.
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 13:18:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA05648; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isns2.shasta.com (isns2.shasta.com [207.16.64.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA05632 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2997 invoked from network); 6 Feb 1999 20:53:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO J) (207.16.67.4)
by mail.shasta.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 1999 20:53:15 -0000
Message-ID: <019001be5213$56d66520$084310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Reply-To: "J. R. Molloy"
From: "J. R. Molloy"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: List tool question
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:55:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>But frankly, I think you're simply doing this to not have to admit
>being wrong, not because it makes sense.
No, I objected to your specious statement that other technologies exist
because I had hoped you might supply some actual examples of same. Instead I
find you indulging your arrogance and ignorance.
You sir, have acted insensibly. In addition, to cover your ignorance, you
fail to post these messages to the list.
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 13:33:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA06053; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maximpact.net ([151.196.219.220]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA06046 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (ken@localhost)
by maximpact.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21477
for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:05:12 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:05:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Gourlay
X-Sender: ken@maximpact.net
To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List tool question
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Wait, so you're denying that any technology other than TCP/IP exists?
Don't forget the telephone, radio, television, megapohne, simple speech,
or semaphores. But I think the original point of this discussion was to
look at Internet technologies that may allow people to communicate more
effectively or more easily than mailing lists do.
----------------------
Ken Gourlay
Chain Communications
----------------------
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> >Yes, J. R., there are other technologies besides mailing lists.
> >
> >web pages
> >web-based discussion boards
> >search databases
> >FAQ sheets
> >FTP sites
> >chat rooms
>
> So a ball peen hammer, a rubber mallet, a gavel, a maul, and a sledge hammer
> represent five different technologies? I don't think so. You've mentioned
> but a single technology here: digital transmission using TCP/IP. The rest
> comprises variations on a theme. --J. R.
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 13:56:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA06371; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA06363 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:25:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70])
by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA37582
; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:36:32 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <019001be5213$56d66520$084310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:23:56 -0800
To: "J. R. Molloy" ,
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 12:55 PM -0800 2/6/99, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> No, I objected to your specious statement that other technologies exist
> because I had hoped you might supply some actual examples of same.
I did. We were talking about mailing lists. You got a nice list of
other technologies, and now you're trying to tell me they're all the
same technology.
Have fun, if that's how you want it, fine.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
+
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
From list-managers-owner Sat Feb 6 14:18:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA06959; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA06952 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Margy (max1-7.shoreham.net [208.144.253.9])
by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA28128;
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990206124400.00b86720@wingate>
X-Sender: margy@wingate
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:46:20 -0500
To: Chuq Von Rospach
From: Margaret Levine Young
Subject: Re: List tool question
Cc:
In-Reply-To:
References: <4.1.19990205112003.00b46750@wingate>
<000c01be50b2$616d33e0$064310cf@J.R.Molloy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>> I agree! I realized a few months ago that I want an e-mail program that
>> will display by mailing list messages in a very different way that my
>> personal messages.
>
>I've had that for years. I use eudora, but any mail client with even
>rudimentary filtering can do this. I filter all of my mail lists into
>separate folders, one per list.
Just seeing the messages for a list in a separate mailbox isn't enough.
(Yes, I use Eudora filters, too.) I want to be able to see summary
information (who posts around here?), a list of subscribers (off to the
side, as in a chat program) with my personal notes about them, a list of
the current threads that I can expand or condense -- use your imagination!
What I'm saying is -- let's think outside of the box on what kinds of
displays might make lists more useful.
Margy Levine Young
Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies," 5th Ed. and "Windows 98: The
Complete Reference"
Looking for kids' videos? Check out